Board of Regents


of the


Madison, Wisconsin

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall


Friday, January 8, 2010

10:00 a.m.


President’s Greeting.. 2




Authority to Seek Enumeration of  Capital Projects Funded by the UW-Milwaukee Initiative approved in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28. 13



of the


Madison, Wisconsin

Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall


Friday, January 8, 2010

10:00 a.m.

- President Pruitt presiding –

PRESENT:   Regents Jeffrey Bartell, Mark Bradley, Eileen Connolly-Keesler, Judith Crain, Stan Davis, John Drew, Anthony Evers, Michael Falbo, Thomas Loftus, Kevin Opgenorth, Charles Pruitt, Brent Smith, Michael Spector, José Vásquez, David Walsh, Aaron Wingad, and Betty Womack

UNABLE TO ATTEND:  Regent Danae Davis

- - -


President’s Greeting

President Pruitt began the special meeting of the Board by welcoming attendees and announcing that in the latest edition of Greater Madison in Business magazine, Regent David Walsh, a partner at Foley and Lardner, was named to the magazine’s Executive Hall of Fame.  The magazine cited his role in building Wisconsin’s cable television industry in the 1970s and in helping preserve major league baseball in Wisconsin, as well as his advocacy for UW-Madison, particularly for research at UW Hospital and Clinics.

- - -


President Pruitt then introduced Dr. Sarah Van Orman, Executive Director of the University Health Services at UW-Madison, to give a presentation on UW institutions’ experience with and response to the H1N1 flu virus.  The virus was a major challenge for the university, with its 178,000 students on 26 campuses, including 39,000 who live in UW residence halls.  UW System Administration does not have any medical personnel on staff and, therefore, depends on people like Dr. Van Orman and her counterparts at campus health centers to serve as lead medical experts when dealing with health issues such as H1N1.

Dr. Van Orman provided a brief summary of the experience from the fall, what to expect in the spring, and lessons learned.  First, she provided an overview of key events in the pandemic:  (1) the virus was first recognized in April 2009 after an outbreak in Mexico and spread rapidly in portions of the U.S.; (2) the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic in June 2009; (3) from June through August 2009 sporadic cases occurred on the UW-Madison campus, in particular; (4) a large outbreak occurred in September 2009 during the first week of classes on the UW-Madison campus and also other campuses; and (5) as the fall progressed, a second peak of activity occurred on Wisconsin campuses and throughout Wisconsin.

Nationally, according to National American College Health Association Surveillance data, 165 hospitalizations and three deaths were reported among college students, Dr. Van Orman said.

In responding to the pandemic, some basic first steps included controlling the spread of the virus until the vaccine became available by emphasizing hygiene, isolation, quarantine, and social distancing.  Then efforts were made to manage the virus’s impact on absenteeism and health care services.  Most UW campuses had done preplanning; health directors took on the tasks of surveillance and delivering messages about hand washing and asking infected students to stay home.  Next, the vaccine was delivered to the campuses.  The delivery of vaccine was less robust than anticipated because vaccine delivery was delayed, into early September, due to the national supply issue; but campuses made aggressive attempts to vaccinate students.  Approximately 6,220 were vaccinated at UW-Madison, 3,104 at UW-Milwaukee, and 1,000 at UW-Whitewater. 

Dr. Van Orman said that she thought it is possible there could be another peak of activity at the beginning of the spring semester.  However, the severity remains low; this is turning out to be a relatively mild disease.

Some of the lessons learned, based on Dr. Van Orman’s communication with other UW health directors, include:  (1) the importance of collaboration with local health departments and health care organizations; (2) the role of clear, comprehensive communications; (3) the need for a coordinated campus-wide response, no matter the size of the campus; (4) the need to consider  the connection between faculty, staff, and student needs when developing policies; (4) the need to build appropriate capacity for campus-wide public health response; and (5) the need to continue to build capacity for continuity of operations and pandemic-specific planning. 

Dr. Van Orman then responded to questions from Regents.  Regent Bradley asked about the value of antibacterial and alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispensers in campus buildings.  Dr. Van Orman said these are important in sending a message, but access to soap and water is also good.  Regent Loftus asked how the identification of H1N1 is made and whether someone who has had the virus should receive the vaccine.  In response, Dr. Van Orman said that when a patient presents with a characteristic set of symptoms, they are diagnosed as having a flu-like illness; routine testing is not recommended and does not change treatment, but a certain number of patients are cultured for surveillance purposes.  The recommendation regarding receiving the vaccine is that someone who believes they had the virus should still be vaccinated.

Regent Womack asked how the impact of absences on academics is addressed through procedures at UW-Madison and systemwide.  Dr. Van Orman responded that the academic impact was an important part of the planning process.  For example at UW-Madison, the vice provost was part of the planning process.  Clear communication with faculty and students about absence policies was important.  Procedures were put in place for students with concerns to work through the Dean of Students Office. 

Regent Walsh asked what could be learned for the future from this pandemic, both here and from experiences around the country.  Dr. Van Orman said that it is a very real concern that campuses will have to respond to other pandemic influenza strains or communicable diseases, even though the novel H1N1 virus may be on the wane.  As for other campuses around the country, most were prepared and responded well.

Regent Loftus asked a question about reports that people who had the vaccine in 1976 would not need to be immunized.  Dr. Van Orman noted that severe disease has not occurred in people over the age of 65, which is different from typical seasonal influenza.  It is believed that they may have some residual immunity not from the vaccine, but from similar swine flus from the earlier period.

Regent Crain posed a question about plans for a situation in which the illness is so severe that the semester essentially has to be reorganized.  Dr. Van Orman said that there are detailed plans for how academic integrity could be maintained if normal operations are interrupted, depending on the point in the semester.   

UW System President Reilly recalled the huge amount of anxiety about the H1N1 virus in the fall.  He thanked Dr. Orman and her colleagues for their work, clinical efforts, and the valuable data that they provided throughout the fall semester.

- - -


President Pruitt noted that last October UW-Eau Claire Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich responded to concerns from students and campus and community leaders about the impact of a new student union on the Council Oak Tree.  The chancellor requested that the planned design be suspended and reviewed to preserve the Tree without significant cost increases or delays.  President Pruitt introduced Associate Vice President David Miller to provide a brief update on the design change and revised project schedule.

Associate Vice President Miller began his remarks by stating that this issue would be back before the Regents in April, for authority to construct.  Referring to a map of the UW-Eau Claire property, Associate Vice President Miller described various modifications in design, noting that the same architect continues to be involved, that the budget has not changed, and that the project will be brought back to the Capital Planning and Budget Committee in April for authority to construct.

In response to a question from Regent Falbo, Associate Vice President Miller said that the redesign is within 2,000 gross square feet of the previously-planned size.

- - -


President Pruitt began the discussion of the UW-Milwaukee Master Plan initiative by saying that the Board’s only action item on the agenda for the special January meeting was focused on specific capital projects at UW-Milwaukee.  The UW System’s Growth Agenda for Wisconsin is meant to boost educational output and stimulate job creation.  UW-Milwaukee’s Research Growth Initiative is a central pillar of that statewide plan, and the capital investments will provide the facilities needed to enhance the University’s impact as an economic driver for Milwaukee and all of Wisconsin.

President Pruitt continued by noting that last month the Board approved UW-Milwaukee’s plans to build a new facility for the School of Freshwater Sciences Research.  That action was one step toward a plan for how UW-Milwaukee will utilize a flexible pool of funds provided by Governor Doyle and the State Legislature in the 2009-11 biennial budget.  At the current meeting, the Board will review additional projects that will comprise the rest of that plan. President Pruitt introduced President Reilly, who would be followed by Senior Vice President Anderes, and then Chancellor Santiago.

President Reilly began his remarks with a review of past actions, leading up to this meeting.  In submitting recommendations for the state’s 2009-11 biennial budget, the Board had recommended a flexible capital investment plan that would allow UW-Milwaukee to move forward with some strategic projects that support UWM’s Research Growth Initiative.  In approving this capital plan, which provided a total of $240 million in funding capacity from various sources, the legislature required that the Regents approve a detailed expenditure plan for the Milwaukee Initiative that identified specific projects and specific sources of funding.  That plan must be approved before any of those dollars, from any source, can be expended.  Last month’s action on the Freshwater Sciences facility was the first step in that direction; approving the UW-Milwaukee expenditure plan is necessary at this time because of Building Commission and Legislative calendars. 

With the Board’s approval, the plan will go to the State Building Commission on January 20th.  After action by the Building Commission, the plan will be drafted as a legislative bill and must be passed, by both houses of the legislature, during one of the two scheduled floor periods during the spring legislative session, which are February 16 through March 4 and April 13 to April 22. 

President Reilly listed the three projects recommended for Board approval:  (1) the Kenwood Integrated Research Complex (IRC) - Phase I; (2) the purchase and redevelopment of Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital; and (3) replacement of the Neeskay Research Vessel.

President Reilly then mentioned two other projects, for information only:  (1) construction of a new Engineering research facility in Wauwatosa; and (2) construction of a facility for the new UWM School of Public Health in downtown Milwaukee.  Planning for these projects will continue, as they are part of UW-Milwaukee’s strategic effort.  The projects will be brought forward in the future through private lease/purchase agreement arrangements. The Regents, the State Building Commission, and the Legislature will need to approve these projects.   President Reilly then invited Senior Vice President Tom Anderes to provide financial details behind the current request. 

Senior Vice President Anderes offered background on the funding of the capital projects that are part of the UW Milwaukee Master Plan Initiative.  First, he recognized individuals from UW-Milwaukee and UW System who have been working on the initiative, including Rita Cheng, David Gilbert, Tom Luljak, Claude Schulte, and Chris Gleason from UW-Milwaukee and Associate Vice President David Miller and his staff, including Kate Sullivan and Jeff Kosloske from UW System.  He praised David Miller for a yeoman’s effort. 

Senior Vice President Anderes then described the funding for the UW-Milwaukee Initiative, which is $240 million and includes $123 million of general fund supported borrowing (GFSB); $55.6 million of program revenue supported borrowing (PRSB); $60 million of gift/grant funding; and $1 million of Building Trust Funds. 

The Board’s December 2009 action committed the first $50 million in GFSB to the School of Freshwater Sciences.  This facility has completed programming and pre-design and will be moving into full design this spring.  Construction can begin as early as mid-2011.

The current request seeks enumeration of:  (1) $75 million for the Kenwood Integrated Research Complex (IRC) Phase I, which includes the remaining $73.4 million in GFSB and $1.6 million in gifts and grants; (2) $31 million for Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital, for purchase and redevelopment, consisting of $30 million in program-revenue-supported borrowing (PRSB) and $1 million of Building Trust Funds; and (3) $20 million in gifts and grants for the Neeskay Research Vessel.

Senior Vice President Anderes said that following the Board’s action at the current meeting, $176 million of the $240 million, including 100 percent of the GFSB, will have been committed. That leaves $64 million of approved funding capacity for future projects.

UW System Administration, primarily through the efforts of Associate Vice President David Miller, has been meeting with numerous parties in assessing each of the projects.  The most important relationship has been working with UW-Milwaukee leadership as they review and weigh all possible options, on and off campus.  Discussions with the UWM Foundation, developers, city of Milwaukee, Department of Natural Resources, and other interested parties have helped to inform the campus decision making.  From the UW System perspective, the outcomes of the process form a strong foundation for UW-Milwaukee’s short- and long-range capital project priorities and next steps.

Senior Vice President Anderes next invited Carlos Santiago, Chancellor of UW-Milwaukee, to offer his vision of the UW-Milwaukee Master Plan Initiative.  Chancellor Santiago began by thanking the Board of Regents for convening a special January meeting to discuss the Milwaukee projects, which represent the future not only of the university, but also of the city, the region, and the state.

Chancellor Santiago drew Regents’ attention to two aspects of the uniqueness of this planning process:  First, the six projects are interdependent and part of a cohesive plan, with no one project having higher priority than another.  The projects have differential impacts on the city and the state, but all are important.  Second, this process provides a degree of flexibility with which the UW System has not experimented in the past.  In December the Board of Regents approved an expenditure of $50 million for the School of Freshwater Sciences, which has great potential for gifts and grants.  The beauty of this plan is that to the extent to which the university can raise philanthropic dollars and grants for a given project, this relieves pressure on state dollars, which can then be used for another project among the six.

Chancellor Santiago continued by saying that the Board of Regents membership has changed since he was hired.  Some current members were involved in his hiring – Regent Bradley, Regent Smith, Regent Pruitt, Regent Danae Davis, and Regent Falbo (from the sidelines).  The Regents and the UW System at the time asked that he focus on building a premier urban research university. 

There are certain metrics that distinguish a research university; there is a difference between a research university and a university that does research.  Creating and commercializing knowledge is a major tenant of a research university, Chancellor Santiago said.  The Board asked early on what it would take to jumpstart a premier urban research university.  In earlier presentations, Chancellor Santiago noted, he had said it would take approximately a $30 million base budget increase to hire faculty and staff, largely in the sciences and engineering, the areas that a research university needs to build.  He also indicated that it would take an initial investment of close to $300 million in facilities that faculty need to generate research.  He expressed appreciation for the investments that have been made. 

He also thanked Senior Vice President Anderes, Associate Vice President David Miller, Vice Chancellor Christy Brown and her team, staff from DOA, and the Building Commission for their hard work.  He also acknowledged the support of the legislature.

Investments from the 2007-09 budget came to the campus last fall; but even prior to that, with the Board’s approval, UW-Milwaukee has added nine Ph.D. programs since 2004, for a current total of 29.  In addition, the Board has approved two new schools, the School of Public Health and the School of Freshwater Sciences.  These two schools are closely aligned to the needs of southeastern Wisconsin and the city of Milwaukee.  Therefore, research has grown. 

UW-Madison refers to itself as the second-largest research institution on the globe; this is because it generates approximately $900 million worth of research expenditures.  When Chancellor Santiago arrived, he said, UWM was graduating approximately $20 million in research expenditures, which was outside of the top 200 research universities in this country and which is not where a premier urban research university needs to stand.  Since then, UWM has improved its rank among top research universities to 200, and it will continue to move up.  A premier research university needs to be in the top 100.

UW-Milwaukee has grown its research through reallocation, through efficient use of state resources, through money raised for the catalyst grant program, and through commercialization of the university’s research and growth in the number of patents that the university holds.  Research dollars are hugely important to the campus; for example, the significant growth in research provides an indirect cost return stream of approximately 50 percent for federal grant streams.  Components of that funding stream have now been dedicated to areas such as the library and information technology.

A university without a medical school needs to generate at least $100 million worth of research to have an impact.  UW-Milwaukee is half-way there in five years, Chancellor Santiago said.

UWM has done this by remaining faithful to its mission of access, Chancellor Santiago continued.  This year, enrollment surpassed 30,000 by stabilizing the freshman class, growing more graduate students, and increasing retention.  The freshman class is now predominantly residential; UWM has made the transition from a commuter to a residential campus.  To continue to expand retention and graduation rates, students need to be housed and engaged in university life.

UW-Milwaukee has been building housing.  The UWM Research Real Estate Foundation acquires property for the university, private developers build the housing, the university manages the housing, and the Board of Regents has voted for the program revenue for the university’s management of these housing units.  Ninety percent of the freshman class requests housing, and the university is closer to meeting the needs of its freshman class, which is important for retention.  Also, reserving beds for students from Milwaukee helps promote retention, Chancellor Santiago said, as undertaking housing projects with non-state funds has saved the state $80 million.

Fundraising was a goal when Chancellor Santiago started.  The Campaign for UWM has raised $125 million, of which $41.5 million is for academic departments and faculty, $40 million for campus expansion and special initiatives, such as radio station WUWM, $29 million is to support student scholarships and fellowships, and more than $14 million is to enhance research infrastructure.  Chancellor Santiago expressed pride in the support UW-Milwaukee has received.

Through the 2007-09 biennial budget process, UW-Milwaukee received $10 million, used to hire 38 faculty positions, not counting teacher education or nursing, and focused largely on sciences and engineering.

With all of the support UW-Milwaukee has received, and all of the work done by individuals on campus, even if UWM were to receive $300 million worth of capital funding and $30 million for the base budget, Chancellor Santiago said that he does not believe that UWM can become a premier urban research university in the confines of the east side of Milwaukee.  There is not enough space or room for collaboration with university partners.

Few premier research universities in this country do not have a medical school.  UWM needs to get closer to the Medical College of Milwaukee, Chancellor Santiago told Board members.  He said he is not proposing a merger, but the university needs to work with and be closer to the Medical College of Wisconsin.  This is what is driving the move to Wauwatosa.  Similarly, it is necessary for an academic health center to be closer to the populations to be served.   The School of Public Health would be the anchor tenant in downtown Milwaukee; faculty from social welfare, nursing, and other disciplines are interested in co-locating in downtown Milwaukee.  The city Department of Public Health should also work collaboratively with the School of Public Health faculty and researchers.  The research university UWM is trying to create has great potential for the city of Milwaukee.

Therefore, it is important to conceptualize a research university with expanded boundaries.  The Innovation Park site in Wauwatosa is only 8 miles from the east side of the UWM campus.  Eighty faculty have worked on the pre-design of the medical campus facility, and they have expressed an interest in being there.  Of the 17 engineers UWM hired in the fall, 15 indicated they wanted joint appointments with the Medical College, and they wanted to be located close to the College.  Any faculty who do not want to move will not be moved.  The plan will provide opportunities, with new (not re-allocated) dollars, for those faculty who want to avail themselves of the opportunities that Milwaukee provides. 

Innovation Park is where UWM anticipates acquiring a 79-acre parcel, of which 50 acres will be developed.  The land will be purchased through the UWM Real Estate Foundation, and a component of the land will be donated to the state for state-funded facilities.  The parcel will be a mixed-use, collaborative research park involving partnerships with the Medical College of Wisconsin, Froedtert Hospital, Children’s Hospital, the Blood Center of Wisconsin, GE Medical, and Milwaukee County Research Park.  This project has the greatest potential to affect the region and the state. 

On the east side, the Integrated Research Complex, on the northwest corner of Maryland and Kenwood on campus, is very important.  The facility will build multi-disciplinary, collaborative research, focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

It makes sense for the university to acquire Columbia St. Mary’s, Chancellor Santiago said.  The current envisioned use would be a mixed-use development consolidating student support services.

Turning to the third UW-Milwaukee project, Chancellor Santiago said that the Neeskay Research Vessel is a 1953 Korean War-vintage vessel which works throughout the year and which was built as a tugboat transport, not as a 21st-century research vessel.  UW-Milwaukee proposes to build a new research vessel to serve as a sophisticated floating laboratory.  It is anticipated that the vessel would be built in Wisconsin.  There is no other research vessel on Lake Michigan; the new vessel would be a symbol of the UW System’s impact on freshwater research.

Building research opportunities in such areas as bioengineering, industrial innovation, energy, and rehabilitation science and technologies will generate support for the rest of the campus, as well.  For example, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation at UW-Madison transfers significant resources to the UW-Madison campus.  UW-Milwaukee needs to think about creating a similarly significant impact. 

Addressing the Public, Community and Clinical Health project, Chancellor Santiago acknowledged the presence at the meeting of Michael Mervis, a board member of the Zilber Family Foundation, who the chancellor indicated was instrumental in negotiating a phenomenal philanthropic gift from Joseph Zilber.  Chancellor Santiago said that Joe Zilber is dedicated to strengthening Milwaukee, and public health is very important to him.  The Pabst site is a singular building in a special location, which brings the university closer to other collaborating institutions, such as Marquette University and Milwaukee Area Technical College, as well as the city’s Department of Health.  It is also located close to the city’s underserved population and the city’s last central-city hospital.  

In closing, Chancellor Santiago told the Board that the proposed projects have the fundamental goal of enhancing the university’s ability to grow its research and maintain access.  The chancellor again expressed his appreciation to all of those who have worked hard and creatively on these projects over the past several years.    

Following Chancellor Santiago’s presentation, Regent Vásquez observed that southeastern Wisconsin does need a premier research university and that UW-Milwaukee’s growth must occur beyond the campus’s current footprint. 

Regent Bartell, Chair of the Capital Planning and Budget Committee, then complimented Chancellor Santiago and his staff and Associate Vice President David Miller and his team, saying that they had come forward with a plan that reflects the objectives of both UW System and UW-Milwaukee.  He expressed his hope that the new and unique concept of flexibility and including multiple, non-prioritized projects in the capital plan is one that can be used at other campuses.  However, the concept poses challenges that single-project resolutions do not.  Even though the projects are not prioritized in terms of importance, there is some priority with respect to timing.  The analysis of the timing and readiness of these projects has been the primary focus of the recent work.  There are still a number of uncertainties in the plan, such as the objective of raising gifts and grants, and this will be the focus of future work. 

Although the Capital Planning and Budget Committee did not meet earlier in the day, Regent Bartell indicated that he and other committee members have been actively involved in reviewing the analysis and contributing to and supporting the thoughts presented in the resolution.

Regent Falbo commented that although there has been some frustration among business leaders in the Greater Milwaukee area about the length of the process, the process has nonetheless been useful for helping develop consensus among local leaders about where components of the plan should be located.  The business community is now supportive, wants to see the projects completed, and is ready to help.  Chancellor Santiago commented that, despite some disagreement along the way, the business community, the non-profit sector, and local media have been supportive.  The discussion has been about where UW-Milwaukee’s contribution can add the most value to the region and city, such as the envisioned partnership between UW-Milwaukee and the Medical College. 

Regent Drew expressed his excitement about the three UW-Milwaukee projects.  The Integrated Research Complex will be particularly important for building up the east-side campus.  He noted some concerns about the high-quality daycare center moving and commented that he trusts that there will be a seamless transition to a new location for the daycare center.  Also, the initiative to upgrade the vessel to be a first-class research vessel is very important.  Regent Drew urged that the vessel be built in Wisconsin, through Wisconsin jobs.  Regarding Columbia St. Mary’s, Regent Drew applauded what the university has done to close the gap in the need for housing for students, such that Columbia is not essential for freshman housing.  Neighborhood associations have now endorsed the purchase of Columbia, with the understanding that it will not be used for undergraduate housing.  Columbia provides flexibility, including a viable option for a School of Public Health.

Regarding the two items not in front of the Board at this time, Regent Drew thanked President Pruitt for answering on behalf of the Board the numerous letters the Board received about environmental concerns at the Wauwatosa site.  Regarding Public Health, this must move forward, but there may be other options, Regent Drew said. 

In response to Regent Drew’s comments, Chancellor Santiago noted that the daycare center is a phenomenal asset to the University and that temporary space will be found for the daycare center while a search is underway for a more permanent location.

The Chancellor also commented, with respect to environmental concerns about the Wauwatosa site, that the environmental plan that was negotiated between the County Board of Supervisors and their staff and the environmental groups, was accepted by the County Board of Supervisors, 16 to one.  UW-Milwaukee has agreed to every point on their plan.

Regarding the School of Public Health and Columbia St. Mary’s, Chancellor Santiago remarked that locating the School at Columbia St. Mary’s would provide more space, but it would not help the city to locate the School of Public Health in a location where it has no partners.  He noted that some have suggested that multi-disciplinary work should be done at Columbia St. Mary’s, but if collaborative research were going to occur on the campus, it would have happened by this time.  A third-party entity, such as a research center with a focus or a non-profit agency with a mission, is needed to promote collaboration.  Locating people in the same building is not sufficient to promote such research.  There are differences of opinion, but Chancellor Santiago reiterated that he does not believe the University can achieve its mission from 90 acres on the east side of Milwaukee.

Regent Pruitt then called upon Regent Vásquez, who moved approval of Resolution 9717, granting authority to seek enumeration of capital projects funded by the UW-Milwaukee Initiative approved in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28.  The motion was seconded by Regent Drew.

After a brief discussion about possibly removing the research vessel from projects covered by the motion, Regent Loftus expressed support for the package of projects and praised the work that Chancellor Santiago has done in his efforts to build UW-Milwaukee into an incredible research university.  Explaining that he has had significant experience with the politics of shipping and shipbuilding, Regent Loftus observed that UW-Milwaukee seems to be limiting itself to building a ship, rather than either buying one and fitting it or leasing a ship; that the vessel would be dedicated to specific purposes decided by the faculty; and that the ship would be capable of being an icebreaker.  He remarked that $20 million might be the cost overrun, rather than the cost.  He asked why UW-Milwaukee is limiting itself to building the ship, when there is a glut of ships on the worldwide market.  Another option might be to have a ship built that the university could lease.  If grants are coming from NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) or the U.S. military, Regent Loftus questioned whether the university might then be restricted to rules and regulations about selection of a shipbuilding firm.  He also asked if a consultant had been hired to help analyze this situation.

Chancellor Santiago responded that the director of the Research Institute has been very much involved in the planning process and that he, the chancellor, has asked similar questions, including whether there are old vessels that UW-Milwaukee could purchase; the answer has been that there may be, but they are old vessels that have been mothballed or would not have the necessary specifications.  The cost to build a new vessel was $16 million as of a couple of years ago; the price of steel has since declined.  The ultimate cost would have to be determined.  He offered to obtain more specifics, and Regent Loftus said he would appreciate that.

Regent Loftus followed up by asking if the resolution being discussed today would restrict UW-Milwaukee to building the vessel.  David Miller explained that what would be enumerated is an allocation of funds; further, the building and ship would be enumerated as one project, to make it easier to move the money between the two.  Thus, if the NOAA grant comes in for the building, it was always intended that some general fund would go into the ship; but if gifts are raised, it could be all gift funded.  The Building Commission has complete flexibility about how the ship will be procured.  It could be a direct purchase.  What will be enumerated are the title and the amount, but not the method.  Regent Loftus urged that UW-Milwaukee consider all options before deciding to have a vessel built.

Regent Connolly-Keesler then complimented the chancellor on his plan.  She asked about the extent to which universities within the System compete for the same pot of research funds.  Chancellor Santiago said that there may be some competition for funds, but other times UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee, for example, may complement each other.  Also, UW-Milwaukee’s focus is not only on federal and some state funds, but also on private research and development funds.

Regent Walsh noted that the largest share of UW-Madison’s research funding has been medical, and there is clearly room for UW-Milwaukee to generate research funds, which are important to southeastern Wisconsin and the rest of the state.  Chancellor Martin’s and former Chancellor Wiley’s support reflect this, as well. Regent Walsh also said that, although Innovation Park is not before the Board, UW-Madison is successful because of collaboration; the Milwaukee plans are about collaboration.  He pledged his support and urged UW-Milwaukee to do whatever it can to make the plans work.  Finally, Regent Walsh indicated that the research vessel is a great idea, and he encouraged UW-Milwaukee to do whatever it can to be the best in this area.

Regent Womack, expressing appreciation for Chancellor Santiago’s efforts and his presentation, asked about the relationship, if any, between the increasingly residential freshman class and decreasing minority enrollment.  Chancellor Santiago said that minority student enrollment has increased even while the size of the freshman class has decreased.  When he arrived at UW-Milwaukee, the freshman class was 14 percent students of color; it is now 20 percent students of color, he said.  Minority enrollment can be increased when enrollment is growing significantly; the question is, can minority enrollment continue to grow when the freshman class size is decreasing.  He indicated, however, that the growth is still too slow.  It is important that the university retain its access mission.  Regent Womack expressed her support for the UW-Milwaukee projects. 

Regent Crain also expressed her support for UW-Milwaukee’s plans and the chancellor’s presentation.

Regent Bradley suggested to Chancellor Santiago that he could declare that in January 2010, the Board of Regents declared the myth of duplication and competition between UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee to be dead.  The scientists who are trying to collaborate are pleading for the facilities to be able to collaborate.  They are not talking about competition; they are talking about collaboration.

Regent Spector, expressing his appreciation for the chancellor’s presentation and his support for the resolution, said that he sees Columbia as a lynchpin of future work.  He noted, however, that he is voting only on this resolution.  While he supports conceptually other ideas that have been discussed during the meeting, such as collaboration in research, his vote is not intended to support any particular detail that has not yet come before the Board for a vote.

Regent President Pruitt called for a vote on Resolution 9717, which was adopted unanimously on a voice vote.

Authority to Seek Enumeration of  Capital Projects Funded by the UW-Milwaukee Initiative approved in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28

Resolution 9718: That, upon the recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, authority be granted to seek enumeration of the following major capital projects with funding provided in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28:

Kenwood Integrated Research Complex (IRC) Phase I at a total estimated cost of $75,000,000 ($43,400,000 existing General Fund Supported Borrowing 2011-13; $30,000,000 existing GFSB 2013-15; and $1,600,000 million Gifts and Grants).

Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital Purchase and Redevelopment at a total estimated cost of $31,000,000 ($30,000,000 existing Program Revenue Supported Borrowing and $1,000,000 Building Trust Funds).

Neeskay Research Vessel at a total estimated cost of $20,000,000 Gifts and Grants.

The meeting was recessed at 12:12 p.m. and reconvened at 12:22 p.m.



The following resolution was moved by Regent Spector, seconded by Regent Drew, and adopted on a roll-call vote, with Regents Bartell, Bradley, Connolly-Keesler, Crain, Stan Davis, Drew, Evers, Falbo, Opgenorth, Pruitt, Spector, Vásquez, Walsh, Wingad, and Womack voting in the affirmative.  There were no dissenting votes and no abstentions.

   Resolution 9719:  That the Board of Regents move into closed session to discuss collective bargaining, as permitted by Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(e).


The meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.


Submitted by:


/s/ Jane S. Radue                          

Jane S. Radue, Secretary of the Board